Dave:

Email me privately.

And...remember that 8.05(g) and 2.00 do not say "only if the pitcher had not previously been in contact with the rubber and stepped off." They both simply state "not in contact..." with no regard as to how F1 got that way.

I am convinced that I will be informed that you are thinking too much with your new interp.

I know that, it was meant to say why Mendoza would have done it in the first place as that is not anywhere near normal for a MLB pitcher to do.

Garth and all. Below is a reply from Jim Evans. Wha kind of beer do you drink, Garth

Dave,

Regarding your rules inquiry: Several people have called and e-mailed me regarding what happened in the NY-Bos game Sunday.
Honestly, I did not see the play when it happened but I was recording the game for use at the Academy. When people started calling me, I went back and reviewed the tape and I agree that a balk should be called in that situation. In effect, that is an illegal pitch. He delivered a ball to the batter while not in contact with the rubber. And, an illegal pitch with runner/s on base is a balk, as we all know (8.05e/2.00 Illegal pitch). In addition, you could legitimately call a balk based on rule 8.05 g.(the pitcher made a motion normally
associated with his delivery while not touching the rubber).

Think about it this way: Runners on first and second. There was no runner attempting to advance from third, what is his purpose in throwing home? To exchange the ball? I don't think so in this case. The pitcher got confused and committed what I call a "mechanical balk." There really was no deceit but he violated the procedure just like when a pitcher drops the ball while touching the rubber. There is no deception but that is considered a mechanical balk. If you do not call this a balk and the runner who thinks a pitch has been thrown attempts to steal third is thrown out, should the out stand? I don't think so. Do you see the problems that can incur if you do not use common sense and prohibit this
practice?

You mentioned that once the pitcher stepped back off the rubber, he became an infielder. Since when do you let infielders deliver the ball to a batter who is in position ready to hit? If there is a possible play at the plate, we've got an entirely different situation. In this case, the runner on second (not third ) wasn't even running.

Another litmus test is this: If the pitcher does this four times in a row, are these considered "balls" or "no pitches." If you consider them "balls," the batter walks. If you consider them "no pitches," then Time must have been called and nothing could occur. My suggestion is to call the first one a balk and you eliminate any confusion later.

We can talk more about this later if you wish, I think you are taking the short end of the stick if you do not call this a balk.

Jim

I don't drink, Dave. But the next time we get together, I'll take a grape Nehi.

Radar O'Reilly!!

Nahhhh. Just an old fart who grew up in small town America and can remember spending a dime and getting a bottle of grape Nehi out of one of those old "locker" style soda machines at the town's only gas station.

Dave:

I think one point that's been overlooked is this: As far as I could see/hear, the umpires did not call a balk until the Yankee bench erupted. That tells me the four umps in the infield were <i>also</i> surprised.

It's a balk by rule -- and by judgment.

The language is all technical, but what it means is: The pitcher can't pretend to pitch whether on or off the rubber. Mendoza was on -- legally and then off -- legally.

But the ball he delivered did not <i>look</i> like a pitch. It actually resembled the ball a pitcher throws when he's asking for a replacement. (Was that what Francona argued? grin) It was a looping "pitch" coming in well above Posada's (the batter) head.

Someone in the thread said Mendoza had a brain freeze. I agree.

Some umpire finally called: "Time! Balk! You -- home!" Then, as is their wont now, they huddled and discussed whether it was a "simulated pitch" or a "throw."

"Simulated pitch" obviously won (the balk stood) because no one could come up with a legitimate reason for Mendoza to "throw" home.

On the other hand, I can't come up with any advantage he might have derived from his action.

If I had to come up with a "local" interpretation, I would say: It's a balk if the pitcher legally disengages the rubber and "throws" home unless he is making a play.

BTW: Let's not forget 8.02c, which the umpires could have invoked: They would then have left Matusi on third, warned Mendoza, and ejected Mel Stottlemeyer (the assistant coach - grin).

Dave: I hear your clinic with Jim Evans was a great success. Jeff Staudinger is writing a series about it for the paid site, and I'll ask Jim about his impressions during the live portion of my interview.

It's good to see you in the Forum.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Oct 20th, 2004 at 07:23 AM]

The pitching coach for the Yankees is Stottlemeyer. Not sure who it is for the Sox. Mendoza pitches for the Sox. Now talk about a blow up if you dump a Yankees coach for a Red Sox blunder...lol

You didn't read my post carefully. I'll slow it down.

If the umpires had invoked 8.02c, then:

1. Yankee Matusi would not score. ("It's not a balk!)
2. Pitcher Mendoza would be warned as per black letter law.
3. The assistant coach for the Yankees would be ejected for arguing Mendoza's move <i>was</i> a balk.

Perhaps you're just not familiar with my phrase: "..., and eject the assistant coach."